Loose Change

[geggy]

I aplogize for the error. Sometime the internet provider on my tmobile sidekick can get screwy. I think I'mn being spied on. Not being paranoid, I have nothing to hide. Theyre the ones who are being paranoid. heh

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

I knew it! As soon as I learned that Judy Wood, that oft-referenced professor of billiard ball physics, was a specialist in the material properties of human teeth, I suspected that JPD was a covert mouthpiece for the Rebellion.

Like everything else in CT Land, it all makes sense when you think about it long enough -- the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry as a "mouthpiece."

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by geggy

I think I'mn being spied on. Not being paranoid,

You really ought to look that word up Geggy...Here's a handy link

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by geggy

i find it twistedly funny that you would associate sept 11 activists with the ufo conspiracy theorsts. I didnt think you would stoop that low. Tell me again, what did UFO have to do with sept 11? I'm really interested in hearing your theories.

I doubt that any of the sceptics on the forum think UFOs have anything to do with 11th September.

I have no doubt that you could make the connection if you really tried, though.

[NobbyNobbs]

Originally Posted by geggy

Tell me again, what did UFO have to do with sept 11? I'm really interested in hearing your theories.

Nobody is suggesting that UFOs had anything to do with 9/11. What they are saying is that the thought processes you are going through are similar to those that the UFO conspirasists go through.

Quote:

Yeah I'm antibush. Any sane person would see that the malevolent activities that he partipicates himself into is against the humanity and i think I've had enough of it. Can you really blame me for it?

No, I can't blame you. I'm not very fond of the guy myself. But that doesn't make him responsible for 9/11. I'm not fond of my neighbor, either, but that doesn't imply he was involved as well. Proof is needed.

Quote:

I'm curious on what you think of the catapulting of the propaganda on television across the entire NYC region during the months after the sept 11 catastrophe. It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC and she explained to me that the repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television. How do you explain that?

"Forbidden"?? What state do you live in? How do you know it was forbidden? That's a direct violation of the consititution, and I'm surprised there wasn't a lawsuit. Can you provide articles or editorials concerning this injunction? I'd be very interested in seeing them.

[Ersby]

Originally Posted by geggy

It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC and she explained to me that the repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television. How do you explain that?

It's clearly a result of meddling by the CIA.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I doubt that any of the sceptics on the forum think UFOs have anything to do with 11th September.

I have no doubt that you could make the connection if you really tried, though.

Already been done: http://www.orbwar.com/ufo-photos-wtc-attack-9-11.htm

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

What state do you live in?

Must...resist....easy....joke!!

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by NobbyNobbs

Nobody is suggesting that UFOs had anything to do with 9/11.

I do think that UFO involvement is every bit as plausible as anything geggy has suggested.

Quote:

"Forbidden"?? What state do you live in? How do you know it was forbidden?

For its residents' protection, many things that are available to you and I are forbidden in the state of Fear, Confusion, and Misapprehension.

[Shrinker]

Quote:

i find it twistedly funny that you would associate sept 11 activists with the ufo conspiracy theorsts. I didnt think you would stoop that low. Tell me again, what did UFO have to do with sept 11? I'm really interested in hearing your theories.

Okay eggy, if 911 cranks really are different from UFO cranks then there's no way we can use the UFO example to predict what will happen to the whole 911 "truth" movement is there? So if we come back in a few decades we'll see that I got all of the following wrong...

The 911 truth movement will never reach a consensus about what happened on 911, simply because all their 'evidence' and anyalses are so obviously mutually exclusive, yet few of them have the backbone to criticize any 'evidence' which appears to implicate the Conspirators.

After being unable to formulate a consistent theory the 911 truth movement will become bitterly fragmented with public disputes between various competing theorists appearing all over the internet.

One or more individuals will come to light who claim to have insider knowledge of the plot or where somehow directly involved in it. They will of course be able to provide no convincing evidence of this. Supporters will claim its because the evidence is being erased.

There will be a number of breakthroughs which will turn out to be hoaxes. But when the number of hoaxes becomes high enough, theorists will begin to claim that they can't all be hoaxes.

More books will be written, more 'documentaries' assembled, more money will be made. Yet no living person will be directly and unambigiously accused, let alone brought to trial.

The 911 conspiracy will seep further and further into popular culture but yet be taken less and less seriously, and not make the slightest bit of difference.

As more real information emerges, the theories will become even more desperately convoluted, to the point that no serious 'truth seeker' believes the silly theories that were knocking around back in 2006

911 theorists will reach old age and die, having unearthed nothing of any value, or even gotten into trouble with the law.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by geggy

It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC and she explained to me that the repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television. How do you explain that?

How do YOU explain that, geggy?

You seem to be alleging that, in your state, the conspiracy was using its sinister powers to suppress its own propaganda. Why?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by geggy

Still attacken the messenger and not the message eh?

There's a message? Will you be sharing it with us at some point?

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

There's a message? Will you be sharing it with us at some point?

He already has, you just have to use your "Secret DeKoder Ring^TM". Check this week's Captain Crunch.

ETA:

By the way, gigger, that wasn't Ad Hominem. Ad Hominem is not a fancy-shmansy word for insults. Ad Hominem is specifically claiming the argument is wrong because the person making it is an idiot/liar/ugly/smells funny/whatever.

My argument is that you're an idiot because your argument is wrong. Spectacularly wrong. Astoundingly wrong. So wrong, the word wrong doesn't even begin to describe how wrong it is. We need a new word to describe something as wrong as your arguments...geggerious.

My comments were a conclusion based on evidence, not an argument against your "theory".

Although, it isn't even a theory, as it's internally inconsistent and disconnected. More of a hypothetical amalgam.

[60hzxtl]

Conspiracy?

The great thing about chasing shadows, pookas, and imaginary bad guys, (and big foot)! is that you never catch them - you chase and chase, and never catch 'em. Unlike real bad guys.


All this time on spent on "squibs" "controlled demo" and we haven't even scratched the rest of the loose changers idiotic conclusions.


(Like what direction does the sun come up in Dylan Avery? Pod? ok- its a pod, now where is the engine shadow? First rule of film making - where is the light coming from kids?)

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by geggy

Tell me again, what did UFO have to do with sept 11? I'm really interested in hearing your theories.

Wackos believe in UFO's. Wackos also believe in 9/11 conspiracies. (Not the same wackos, necessarily, but wackos nevertheless. ) Why do we call them wackos, you ask? Because neither have any substantial basis for their beliefs. The only difference between them and a crazy man talking to himself on the street corner is that they are able to mask their delusions with a facade of "scholarship" and "research".

[60hzxtl]

Aggle - its harder and harder to find the crazy guy on the corner talking to himself - sometimes it REALLY is a cell phone.

The conversation is the same, but there IS somebody on the other end.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by geggy

It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC and she explained to me that the repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television. How do you explain that?

Here are my explanations:

"It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC"

Explanation: You're not a very good friend. It took you a YEAR to contact this person after 9/11?


"repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time"

Explanation: Slow news days.
Alternate explanation: Cutbacks at the NYC TV stations, so old footage is recycled.
Alternate explanation: Competition for ratings.

Pick one.


"whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television."

Explanation: You are mistaken about the images being forbidden. It's a YEAR OLD NEWS STORY, for heavens sake. Why would they still be showing it?

Alternate explanation: You are mistaken about the images being forbidden. You haven't seen it because you don't watch the news, since George Bush has a stranglehold on the media.

Now, how do YOU explain why any of this is relevant?

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by 60hzxtl

Aggle - its harder and harder to find the crazy guy on the corner talking to himself - sometimes it REALLY is a cell phone.

The conversation is the same, but there IS somebody on the other end.

Well, if he's wearing a shoe on his head, that's a dead giveaway.

ETA: I mean no disrespect to the mentally ill. They can't help the way they are. However, geggy and his ilk are being willfully insane. They can back away from the precipice whenever they choose.

[Hellbound]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Here are my explanations:

"It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC"

Explanation: You're not a very good friend. It took you a YEAR to contact this person after 9/11?


"repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time"

Explanation: Slow news days.
Alternate explanation: Cutbacks at the NYC TV stations, so old footage is recycled.
Alternate explanation: Competition for ratings.

Pick one.


"whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television."

Explanation: You are mistaken about the images being forbidden. It's a YEAR OLD NEWS STORY, for heavens sake. Why would they still be showing it?

Alternate explanation: You are mistaken about the images being forbidden. You haven't seen it because you don't watch the news, since George Bush has a stranglehold on the media.

Now, how do YOU explain why any of this is relevant?

You missed an explanation, aggle. It was a year after the event.

One year later.

I don't think there was a single network that didn't have some type of memorial show on the anniversary date, and you would expect a LOT more of this in New York. And, likely, some networks may have made the decision not to broadcast the more disturbing scenes from that day, leading to gledgy's "banned from showing footage" comments.

It's geggerious.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by geggy

Yeah I'm antibush. Any sane person would see that the malevolent activities that he partipicates himself into is against the humanity and i think I've had enough of it.

You claim to be a sane person, but then you claim that Bush is anti-humanity. Paranoia is not sane, Geggy.

Quote:

I'm curious on what you think of the catapulting of the propaganda on television across the entire NYC region during the months after the sept 11 catastrophe. It wasn't a year until after the catalyzing event that I contacted a friend from NYC and she explained to me that the repeated images of the plane crashing, towers falling were still being shown on television at the time whereas in my home state it was forbidden to show images of sept 11 on television. How do you explain that?

No, how do YOU explain that ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by geggy

I aplogize for the error. Sometime the internet provider on my tmobile sidekick can get screwy. I think I'mn being spied on. Not being paranoid, I have nothing to hide. Theyre the ones who are being paranoid. heh

Geggy, let me state this clearly.

IF THE GOVERNMENT WAS HALF AS BAD AS YOU SAY IT IS, YOU'D BE DEAD BY NOW.

Sorry for the shouting.

[geggy]

Belz...
Take a look...







You can clearly see the squibs ejecting. The ejection of the second squib in the picture is far below the collapsing area of the tower. In an event of controlled demo, squibs eject out of buildings at the same time to allow the building to free fall. Squibs ejected out of the wtc tower and the top followed through. The tower couldn't have possibly came down without stripping and cutting of the core to weaken the structure of the building unless explosives were preplanted. I'd have my doubt if puff of smoke ejected of every floor as if the pancaking theory was true. But the problem is here in this picture...



In the area of the puff of smoke ejection did not appear to be damaged. There were no signs of trusses giving away, otherwise the cracks of the concrete of the tower would be clearly visible. So what exactly do you think caused the ejecting of the puff of smoke?

The only logical explanation for this is that squibs were making a clean cut through the concrete of the towers.

[Hellbound]

geggy:

Those are not squibs, no matter how much you want them to be.

Those are most likely the result of air pressure, as the collapsing upper floors are pushing dust and air downward, increasing the pressure to the point that it blows out some windows.

Besides, the support is in the cneter of the building...why would you expect to see squibs outside? And why would they only be in the center of each side of the building?

Your argument is getting geggerious again.

Have any evidence?

[Manny]

Originally Posted by Huntsman

Besides, the support is in the cneter of the building...why would you expect to see squibs outside? And why would they only be in the center of each side of the building?

Relatedly, there were no vertical concrete structures in the World Trade Center. Only the floors themselves were concrete. Any explosive charge set to demolish them would be expected to expel its ejecta up or down (depending on whether it's set above or below the structure), not out.

[60hzxtl]

The only logical explanation for this is that squibs were making a clean cut through the concrete of the towers.[/quote]


All floors in the WTC were not equal. Some were machinery (ac, water pumps, compressors, etc.) some were office space. Some were full of stoff, and some were vacant.

That puff is the path of least resistance -

And what is an "explosion" anyway? The puff YOU see in your "squib" is just a push of matter away from a released compression of air - it doesn't matter if it goes 'boom' or pfffft - its still the compression of air.

[Orb]

I thought a squib was a pretend bomb used in the movies?

[60hzxtl]

Originally Posted by Orb

I thought a squib was a pretend bomb used in the movies?

Yup - and the LC'ers are full of pretend stuff if you listen to their soundtracks - The entire thing is so laughably bad. Making me want to take it and re-narrate it, or narrate over it. Since there is very little footage that belongs to these kids, its all purchased from the original sources, it would be a very doable thing.

Me? I'd rather go after the real bad guys than chase shadows. LC's may not be charging for the film, but there is a pile $$$$$ to be made in speaking fees, and expenses. Not a bad living.

If they really believed that the country was as lost as they say, there is nothing to stop them from leaving - the door swing both ways.

Ask Roman Polanski

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by geggy

Belz...
In the area of the puff of smoke ejection did not appear to be damaged.

But the building was already falling, so what was the point of setting off a lonely charge a few floors below the collapse?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

But the building was already falling, so what was the point of setting off a lonely charge a few floors below the collapse?

Exactly, in every single controlled demolition the "squibs" go off before the building starts to collapse. But for WTC 1, 2, and 7 no squibs appear until after the buildings start to collapse. Because, of course, they're not squibs at all but the result of floors pancaking and expelling debris due to air pressure.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by geggy

Belz...
Take a look...

Oh, geggy,you couldn't have picked a better example of what is NOT an explosion. Again, you act as though you're dealing with people as stupid as you are.

Have you seen the video of that "squib?" No, you haven't, you just post stills from the internet, just like with the bin Laden "confession" tape. You absolutely refuse to do your homework, despite getting dragged behind the woodshed EVERY DAY FOR IT.

How many days in a row is that?

Will you go back and show us the last time you used an example to prove a point and it was correct? That's a serious question, geggy.

YOU'VE MADE 120+ POSTS. HAVE YOU BEEN RIGHT ONCE ABOUT A SINGLE POINT OF FACT?

SHOW US AN EXAMPLE.

[Regnad Kcin]

geggy, I was wondering...

What do you do for a living?

[Gravy]

I'm going to repeat myself, because I want geggy to get the point and I'm not sure he can read more than a few sentences without frying his neurons.

geggy, please show us ONE example that you've used as evidence to support your conspiracy theory that has been correct.

And if you've made over 120 posts and not gotten anything right, what does that tell you?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

geggy, I was wondering...

What do you do for a living?

and assuming you do have a job...

Originally Posted by DavidJames

...are you required to make decisions based on logic and facts or can you just make crap up like you do here?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin

geggy, I was wondering...

What do you do for a living?

How do you think "factory seconds" get made?

[pgwenthold]

So I don't know a lot about controlled demolitions. I was wondering, could one of those who think the pictures above are indicative of a controlled demolition show me a picture of a known controlled demolition that looks the same?

I know you aren't building demolitions experts, so I would assume that you have pictures and video of controlled demolitions that you have compared to the WTC towers falling and seen comparable features. I mean, how else could you justify using these pictures to claim that "it looks like a controlled demolition" if you haven't documented similar effects in known controlled demolitions?

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by [COLOR=black

- Ø®£Z - at the Loose Change forum][/color]If any administrators remove this thread, that is a sure sign that Loose Change, and this forum are nothing more than an intelligence disinformation operation.

There is no profanity, nudity or illegal material contained in this post; therefor, there is no credible reason for its removal, should an administrator "decide" to remove this thread.

The real Osama, not the altered, disinformation version from Loose Change 2E.




A real picture of the damage at the Pentagon from Flight 77 -- the 757 that crashed there.






(22:03) "Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757"



It isn't. The damage is, in fact, completely consistent with a Boeing 757 having hit the Pentagon.

But the fact that the makers of LC2E chose to use a picture that has a lot of smoke, fire retardent foam and a firetruck spraying two solid streams of water across and into the building in the foreground, obscuring and hiding the impact zones in the background, it isn't any wonder why people would think that there isn't much damage.


I believe that 9/11 was an inside job. However, disinformation laden 9/11 videos like Loose Change -- first and second editions -- only serve to undermine the factual evidence of 9/11 having been an inside job.

Those above two pics that I wrote the text on, are only two quick examples of Loose Change 2E disinformation. There are easily 100 more examples, easily.

Since I'm a member of this forum now, I'll need to completely dismantle the lies, disinformation, misinformation, and already thoroughly debunked hoaxes that are contained in Loose Change 2E.

If the site administrators remove this thread, Loose Change, and thsi forum are part of a continuing intelligence disinformation operation.


I challenge you [the site] to prove me wrong.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...post&p=4110708

It will be fun to see how they handle this.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...post&p=4110708

It will be fun to see how they handle this.

ROFLMAO!

Good one, CS, or whoever posted that!

[Gravy]

In the thread about my "LC" critique, I saw that TheQuest, one of the dumbest of them all said he was willing to "concede" the Pentagon. Boy, Rumsfeld will be glad to have it back!

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...post&p=4110708

It will be fun to see how they handle this.

Suicide by screenshot!

[CptColumbo]

In regards to the relationship of the Chertoffs a person at this thread:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...?showtopic=682

writes:

Quote:

His mother says so, according to Alex Jones.. lol

"Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, Yes, of course, he is a cousin.' "

I e-mailed Benjamin Chertoff again to get a comment, his reply:

Quote:

Thank you for not disclosing my e-mail address.

No, I'm not related to Michael Chertoff. In fact, the first time I'd ever heard of him was when he was nominated as head of homeland security -- at least a week after we'd gone to press with the story (magazines are "long
lead," meaning we close an issue months before its publish date).

My name isn't very common, so, last year, it was an honest answer to say Ididn't know whether I was related when asked -- and I said that to a "reporter" who'd called my direct line, without any introduction to let me know he was going to do anything with the conversation.

As for my mother, that quote is patently absurd. She was contact by someone who called himself "chris," and never identified himself as a reporter. And her answer -- at least what she swears she said -- was "he might be a cousin." Neither she nor I knew -- in the end, after trying to find any
relation to Mike Chertoff, I've come up empty handed. But, again, I can tell you this with certainty: I've never met him, nor have I had any contact with him. Ever. And the same goes for me extended family. I have about as much of a relationship with Michael Chertoff as Old McDonald has
with Ronald.

(And for the record, I can only assume you're brothers with Peter Falk.)

I'd recommend would be conspiracy theorists contact Michael Chertoff's office if they want to investigate a nonexistent relationship -- I imagine he has much more detailed files on this sort of stuff than I do.

And, either way, as you said -- the facts in the story are easily verifiable, AND I was only one of 9 reporters working on the story.

Facts are facts, no matter how much people dislike them.

B

I'll try to get a hold of Michael Chertoff, but I think that might take awhile.